Kerry Campaign Veterans Dismiss Complaints Over Obama's Bin Laden Ad

[Lakhota]

By Sam Stein

WASHINGTON -- For veterans of John Kerry's 2004 presidential campaign, the past week of debate over the fairness of making political attacks out of national security issues has brought about a bit of nostalgia and, in many cases, the chance to sit back and smirk.

The Massachusetts senator was famously submarined by attacks over his own personal service and his capacity to handle modern terrorist threats. At the time, aides to Kerry cried foul, arguing that former President George W. Bush's re-election campaign and allied groups were playing on people's fears for electoral gains. With the shoe now firmly on the other foot -- and Republicans griping over an Obama campaign web ad suggesting that Mitt Romney wouldn't have approved the raid that killed Osama bin Laden -- the collective response from the Kerry crowd is something akin to: "tough shit."

"That was then, this is now," said Steve Elmendorf, Kerry's 2004 deputy campaign manager. "This is what people do with challengers. One of the advantages of incumbency is you get to do the job and make the tough decisions and you get to make suggestions about whether the challenger is up to the job."

There is a lengthy history of presidential campaigns using the threat of terrorism, war or even nuclear annihilation to raise questions about their opponent. The most infamous remains the Daisy Ad, run just once by President Lyndon Johnson against Republican Barry Goldwater in 1964, but forever memorialized as the dawn of airwave campaigns.

Bush's re-election team brought the practice to a heightened level. The president's advisers produced the infamous Wolves ad, warning voters about the nebulous threats on the horizon. His campaign attacked Kerry as un-appreciative of the troops and unwilling to make tough wartime decisions. Allied groups openly wondered if Kerry could have shown the leadership needed to respond to 9/11. The genre turned into outright character assassination when the group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth began raising doubts about the senator's record from Vietnam.

It is that latter attack that serves as a line of demarcation for the Obama campaign, which has argued that it's not engaging in the same tactics that Democrats once decried.

"The difference here is that we won't be swift boating Mitt Romney," Stephanie Cutter, Obama's campaign manager said in an email. "We are sticking to actual facts, not dishonest attacks and distortions. Romney said he wouldn't go into Pakistan to get Bin Laden, and then hit one of his opponents Mike Huckabee when he said that he would. That's important information to voters, because it shows a lack of judgment and a lack of strength, particularly if Romney is now saying that he would have given the same order the President did to get Bin Laden. He had a chance to get it right, without the enormous pressure of being the Commander in Chief, and he got it wrong."

More: Kerry Campaign Veterans Dismiss Complaints Over Obama's Bin Laden Ad

 

[Lakhota]

"Obama would have been killed if something had gone wrong with that mission," he said. "The fact is it is perfectly fair game to tout its success."

From the above OP link.

 

[Clementine]

"Obama would have been killed if something had gone wrong with that mission," he said. "The fact is it is perfectly fair game to tout its success."

From the above OP link.

So now we're supposed to believe Obama was in danger because of the mission? Nice attempt to make it sound like he is on the same level as the SEALS.

 

[California Girl]

"Obama would have been killed if something had gone wrong with that mission," he said. "The fact is it is perfectly fair game to tout its success."

From the above OP link.

Who would have killed him? And for what?

Fucking ridiculous drivel.

 

[Lakhota]

"Obama would have been killed if something had gone wrong with that mission," he said. "The fact is it is perfectly fair game to tout its success."

From the above OP link.

So now we're supposed to believe Obama was in danger because of the mission? Nice attempt to make it sound like he is on the same level as the SEALS.

Political danger - and possibly physical danger from rabid wingnuts. Apparently you didn't read the OP link...

 

[Lakhota]

Obama has every right to exploit his strengths and successes as President for political gain, just as Romney has every right to exploit Obama's failures and weaknesses for political gain. It's call politics. Both sides do it.

Let's see which side runs the dirtiest and most dishonest campaign heading into November. I think I already know...

 

[Flaylo]

The Repugs are just fiery mad because Obama getting bin Laden refutes any notion of him being soft on terrorists and also because Bush couldn't get him, they're just mad.

 

[Lakhota]

The Repugs are just fiery mad because Obama getting bin Laden refutes any notion of him being soft on terrorists and also because Bush couldn't get him, they're just mad.

Exactly! The wingnut game is always rigged: Heads they win, tails you lose.

 

[The Rabbi]

The Repugs are just fiery mad because Obama getting bin Laden refutes any notion of him being soft on terrorists and also because Bush couldn't get him, they're just mad.

Obama didnt "get" bin Laden. That was Seal Team 6, an organization denounced by the Dums as "Dick Cheney's hit squad."

http://www.newser.com/story/54797/cheney-ran-secret-hit-squad-hersh.html

Somehow they didnt have a problem when Obama did it. It was just different.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I did not know that Seymour Hersh, a reporter, spoke for the Democratic Party. Learn something new every day.

 

[Stephanie]

Boy they're going to milk this forever I guess

Of course then they don't have to talk about his record here at home

 

[JakeStarkey]

That's why we should end the stuff and concentrate on the economy.

 

[The Rabbi]

Boy they're going to milk this forever I guess

Of course then they don't have to talk about his record here at home

Exactly. What else is he going to talk about? The economy? Obamacare? Dodd-Frank? All disasters.
He has one success and he didnt do any mroe than nod his head. Fortunately he was qualified to nod. Even if that's all he was qualified for.

 

[JakeStarkey]

He did far more than "nod", and the great majority of America approve BHO's decision and courage.

That's a fact.

Let's concentrate on the economy.

 

[Flaylo]

The Repugs are just fiery mad because Obama getting bin Laden refutes any notion of him being soft on terrorists and also because Bush couldn't get him, they're just mad.

Obama didnt "get" bin Laden. That was Seal Team 6, an organization denounced by the Dums as "Dick Cheney's hit squad."

Cheney Ran Secret Hit Squad: Hersh

Somehow they didnt have a problem when Obama did it. It was just different.

If thats the logic you're using Askhenazi, oil prospectors, not Obama, raise oil prices and thus raise gas prices, but it hasn't stopped you facktards on the right from attacking and blaming Obama for it. In bin Laden's case, Obama gave the order to get him so that's something directly under his control.

 

[The Rabbi]

He did far more than "nod", and the great majority of America approve BHO's decision and courage.

That's a fact.

Let's concentrate on the economy.

Remind me what courage it took. Not to do it was the height of cowardice. A position occupied by Joe Biden.

 

[Flaylo]

He did far more than "nod", and the great majority of America approve BHO's decision and courage.

That's a fact.

Let's concentrate on the economy.

Remind me what courage it took. Not to do it was the height of cowardice. A position occupied by Joe Biden.

That being the case, what the fack are you rightwing dipshats complaining about?

 

[Harry Dresden]

The Repugs are just fiery mad because Obama getting bin Laden refutes any notion of him being soft on terrorists and also because Bush couldn't get him, they're just mad.

Exactly! The wingnut game is always rigged: Heads they win, tails you lose.

yea because it dont work that way for Democrats.....

 

[Flaylo]

The Repugs are just fiery mad because Obama getting bin Laden refutes any notion of him being soft on terrorists and also because Bush couldn't get him, they're just mad.

Exactly! The wingnut game is always rigged: Heads they win, tails you lose.

yea because it dont work that way for Democrats.....

Man provid an instance, the Repugs are the ones talking the most shat and coming up with strawmen when people attack back in order to deflect.

 

[Harry Dresden]

He did far more than "nod", and the great majority of America approve BHO's decision and courage.

That's a fact.

Let's concentrate on the economy.

Remind me what courage it took. Not to do it was the height of cowardice. A position occupied by Joe Biden.

That being the case, what the fack are you rightwing dipshats complaining about?

you spelled FUCK wrong and its ....dipSHIT.......if you cant swear properly,then why swear at all?.....you make yourself look kinda ......"Tangy".....ask your Cousin.....i am more than sure he can tell you what that means.......